More than four decades after a 14-year-old girl was allegedly raped in a sugarcane field in Ghaziabad, the Allahabad High Court has finally put the matter to rest. The court dismissed the convict's appeal and upheld his seven-year sentence, ruling that small gaps in witness statements don't automatically mean the prosecution's case falls apart.
Background of the Case
The case goes back to January 1983. According to the police complaint, the victim, then a young girl, had gone to a forest area near her village to cut fodder for cattle, something she did routinely. It was alleged that a man from a neighbouring area caught hold of her, dragged her into a sugarcane field, and raped her. Two villagers who heard her cries reportedly rushed to the spot, causing the accused to flee.
The girl's father was away at the time, and it was only after he returned that the family approached the police. The FIR was lodged a day after the incident. A trial court in Ghaziabad convicted the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in 1985 and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. He challenged this conviction before the High Court, and the appeal remained pending for close to four decades before finally being heard.
Arguments in Court
The defence leaned heavily on the delay in filing the FIR, arguing it hadn't been properly explained. It also pointed to inconsistencies between the statements of the girl's father and the girl herself about when exactly they went to the police station. Another plank of the defence was that the accused himself had suffered fourteen injuries around the time of the incident, and the prosecution never explained how he got them.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The State, on the other hand, argued that the witnesses were simple, rural, and largely illiterate people, and small mismatches in their recollection of dates and timings were only natural. It maintained that the girl's own testimony was steady and credible enough to sustain a conviction on its own.
Court's Observations
Justice Sanjiv Kumar didn't find the delay in lodging the FIR troubling. Given the social stigma attached to such incidents for a family's reputation, some hesitation before going to the police was understandable, the court noted. It also held that the appellant hadn't led any evidence to back his claim that he was assaulted after a separate dispute over a crop, so the absence of an explanation for his injuries didn't hurt the prosecution's case.
On whether medical evidence contradicted the girl's account, the court referred to earlier Supreme Court rulings and reiterated that a legal finding of rape doesn't depend on medical proof alone. The bench observed that the doctor's inability to give a definite opinion had "no material significance" once the victim's own account was found reliable and consistent.
The court also weighed in on why the girl didn't resist more forcefully during the assault, observing that a young, frightened girl not fighting back or sustaining visible injuries doesn't make her testimony any less believable.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly found the appellant guilty. The appeal was dismissed, and the 1985 conviction and sentence were affirmed.
The court cancelled his bail bonds and directed him to surrender before the trial court within three weeks to serve out the remainder of his sentence, failing which coercive steps would be taken to secure his custody.
Case Details
Case Title: Veer Singh vs. State of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1089 of 1985
Judge: Hon'ble Justice Sanjiv Kumar
Decision Date: July 9, 2026
